Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: DT: fix gic interrupt controller documentation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:44:33AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 03/13/2014 11:40 AM, Tim Harvey wrote:
>> > When using interrupt-maps, the size of a map entry is #address-cells +
>> >  #interrupt-cells for the parent interrupt controller.  For the ARM GIC
>> > address-cells should be 0 as this is not used.
>> >
>> > This patch fixes the example by correctly specifying #address-cells = 0.
>>
>> If the #address-cells property is required (well, or even optional...)
>> in the node, shouldn't it be included in the list of required/optional
>> properties above, and not solely included in the example?
>
> AFAIK, #address-cells = 0 is the same as not including a
> #address-cells at all.
>
> Omitting entirely is what other interrupt-controller bindings are
> doing, so I'd just drop mention of #address-cells completely.
>
> Jason

Jason / Stephen,

Yes, it does indeed default to 0 if not specified.  For arm-gic it
would appear #address-cells must be 0, so should we remove all places
its set explicitly to 0 in dts as wel as the example in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings?

Looking through arch/arm/boot/dts I'm seeing other dts configs using
'arm,cortex-a9-gic' which I'm guessing are equally as wrong as the
imx6 situation:
 - arch/arm/boot/dts/highbank.dts
 - arch/arm/boot/dts/sh73a0.dtsi

I'm also seeing a number of places where its set explicitly to 0:
 - Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
 - Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/vexpress.txt
 - arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm11351.dtsi
 - arch/arm/boot/dts/hi3620.dtsi
 - arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl.dtsi
 - arch/arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7.dts

If I extend this search to the other compatible gic interrupt
controllers implemented in drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
(arm,cortex-a15-gic, qcom,msm-8660-qgic, qcom,msm-qgic2) I find even
more examples where #address-cells is set explicitly to 0 or to 1 (and
I would believe a value of 1 is invalid, just as it is in my case).

I'm happy to broaden my patch, but I certainly want to make sure I'm
doing the right thing with it, as I don't have the ability to test all
the other devicetree configs and am by no means a devicetree expert.

Recommendations?

Tim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux SoC Development]     [Linux Rockchip Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux